Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 70 yr old ex-tradesman), who has a passionate interest in the problems of newspapers along with their success in all their monetisation attempts made, on the web. For the "times are indeed, a changin", I feel. [17th of Aug, 2011 - Print media... More
View LookingConfident's Instablogs on:
  • Open Letter To Julie Steel Re; 9104/15 James V's Barber

    Monday, 21st of September 2015

    Julie Steel
    Executive Director

    Supreme, District and Land courts
    and Industrial Relations Commission Service.

    Dear Julie,

    Its good news to read of the appointment of a new Chief Justice, the Honourable Catherine Holmes.

    Below is a statement by the Premier of the state of Queensland, and a photo of the new Chief Justice that I've lifted from a mainstream media article, after the announcement had been made.

    My question that I need you to ask the new Chief Justice (Julie), is contained later in this my approach, in seeking answers from you.



    It is understood that under the Rule of Law, no one is above the law.

    And that the law (and certainly in what is a plenary jurisdiction - jurisdiction that the Supreme Court- being the Highest court in Queensland, has), and with a separation of power between the Executive government and the Judiciary, the former can hardly be telling the latter (and I'm meaning, the Executive government telling the Justices in the Supreme court), as to what law they can hear and what law that they can't hear.

    The Queensland constitution of 2001 itself tells us that the Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction at law.

    Section 88 tells us, that this Act doesn't affect anything existing in relation to the court. (Take away, lessen or, impair any jurisdiction or, power... that was, immediately before the commencement of section 58, etc)

    Constitution (2001)

    Whilst on the topic of the Rule of Law:

    Rule of Law (And access to justice.)

    "We look forward to working with the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Holmes, in maintaining and preserving the rule of law and access to justice across the state," says Fitzgerald. (President of the Queensland Law Society Michael Fitzgerald)

    "The appointment brings certainty to our profession and our community", he added.

    And, from Page 3 of 17 in a speech in the Supreme Court (on 31 August, 2007), made by the Honourable Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE..he delivered the following point, and its one that has stuck in my mind:

    In regards to the Rule of Law, he said:

    The Pontiff Pope Francis (himself) has also said - and from within an address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, on the 25/11/2014.

    He [Pope Francis] said: "What dignity can there be without a clear juridical framework, which limits the rule of force and enables the rule of law to prevail over the power of tyranny?"


    Under the Rule of Law its clear, that no one is above the law.

    In an ongoing matter that I have myself, before the court (already with a variety of complications), I am trying to access the highest jurisdiction of law, that a Supreme Court Justice can get to hear.


    My access continues to be denied.. in that the Registry caters for the Civil law jurisdiction, only, ... is what I feel I am being told, and that this corporate jurisdiction is all that's available for my matter to be heard in.

    Papal law, the highest form of law for living men and women, is being denied to me.... I need you to ask the new Chief Justice (the Honourable Justice Holmes) why is it, that I am having problems accessing this jurisdiction - yet, when in the Supreme Court of Queensland in 1985, the corporate Queensland Government used the Papal Bull, "Doctrine of Discovery", in "Mabo v. Queensland"?


    It was pleasing to find the (an initial) 11/09/2015 appeal application when listed as being from Ross James. (Of the Bradley Family.)

    It was quite a disappointment to have then seen this listing revert back to the usual kind of "Civil law" (listing), and I assume this was done by a person from within the Supreme court Registry.

    The question becomes, .... is a living man or, women in a matter involving another living man or, woman (being of a criminal nature), able to be heard at the required jurisdiction sought before a living man/woman Justice - in the highest law court, in Queensland?

    That jurisdiction?

    Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio On the Jurisdiction of Vatican City State, in Criminal Matters

    I look forward to an answer from the Honourable Chief Justice (through you, Julie), and it will be most appreciated, also. Thanks.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Ross James of the Bradley Family.

    Sep 19 8:56 PM | Link | Comment!
  • "What Kim Davis Knows (Or Thinks She Knows) About The LAW?"

    < "At that point of time in history, the Church of England had not broken it's ties with the Church of Rome." >

    According to this white paper:

    Its clear or, I feel it should be by now, that "the Queen" (as a Corporation sole of, the Church of England) remains "registered with" the Roman curia and as such, is under the law of, the sovereign. (The Pope.)

    You can break ties with the sovereign? You can tell him (the Pope), that you don't want to be under his law, anymore?

    Is both America and Australia, a "Christian" country?

    Forgetting the (other) "issues" in regards to 'Arthur marrying Jim' and not Martha - in a Christian society, the "law" (itself), still remains. No?

    < In this marriage license system created by the Reformed tradition, the state and the church have separate but complementary roles to play in advancing a religious (read Christian) society. >

    [Corporate governments themselves must also answer to, corporate law and ultimately, the "power" behind that corporate law.]

    A point made is, that, in the U.S., "the secular state's regulation of the sexual life of its citizens is actually religion by other means." All of this aligns, generally speaking, with Winnifred F. Sullivan's recent remark that "[e]stablishment, not free exercise, is the natural way of government, in the United States and elsewhere."

    This form of establishment, for example, helps explain why religious leaders can simultaneously serve as public officials while conducting weddings in their religious roles and in religious settings. >

    < The Christian Reconstruction movement seeks, as John Calvin did centuries prior, to have government operate from a Christian basis, even though the church remains separate and independent.

    In other words...

    Davis is fundamentally opposed to the disestablishment of marriage and that is the cause of her freedom of religion claims that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear. She wants civil marriage to remain, at its roots, a form of religious marriage. Davis's claim that she was refusing to issues marriage licenses under "God's authority" is not as bizarre as it initially sounds. >

    Kim Davis was imprisoned (and since released) because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Perhaps the article header should read:

    "What Kim Davis Knows (Or Thinks She Knows) About the LAW?"

    The full William E. Smith story:


    Sep 13 11:12 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Twitter - @SenBrandis @YvetteDAth @SteveAustinABC

    (click to enlarge)

    Wednesday morning

    Dear Honourable Attorney Generals,

    Please take notice of all this - if not for our children and our grand-children.

    Peter Cosgrove - Governor-General [A living man.]

    [Official] General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd)

    Its important to learn that a "papal nuncio", officially known as an Apostolic Nuncio [or, the Pope Francis representative in a country], is a permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state. [Meaning, a U.N. corporate state.]

    Pope Francis' appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Australia, is His Excellency Most Rev Adolfo Tito Yllana (who is a doctorate in civil and canon law, and completed post-graduate studies in international diplomacy at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in Rome.)


    On Wednesday 24 June 2015, at Government House, Canberra, the Governor-General received from His Excellency Archbishop The Most Reverend Adolfo Tito Yllana [the "papal nuncio"], Letters of Credence accrediting him as the Ambassador of The Holy See.

    The permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state [the "papal nuncio"] was accompanied by Monsignor John John Kallarackal (Counsellor).


    Ross Bradley

    • Ross Bradley .
      The denial, ongoing secrecy or, that its even "illicit" to mention, accept or, generally recognise the Pope's "law" and his sovereign role (as the crown) here in Australia, is so obvious.

      In view of Australia's Governor General's now becoming an [the] official Ambassador to the Holy See.. and the "symbolic" status only, of 'the Queen', the Governor General's role of importance (and in regards to the Law), must now, surely be considered as being significant.

      Page 390 of this book (in looking at FIVE CASE STUDIES OF EUROPEAN MICRO STATES), may point us to that, as being so.

      (Click on, to read.)

      Ross Bradley

    • Ross Bradley .
      The double mandate [are].. "worldly and ecclesiastical tasks".

      The corporate Queensland government can call on (and use) the Papal "law" (The Doctrine of Discovery) in it's own "defense"- yet will deny it when we (as living men/women) choose to call on it ("Motu Propio"), ourselves?

      That sounds fair.

      Fact is, that in 1985 the corporate Queensland Government had used that very same "Doctrine of Discovery" themselves... in "Mabo v. Queensland"

      Then "corporatised" the Queensland Supreme court, the Justices, the Governor of Queensland in 1999 and then the Queensland constitution, in 2001.

      The Supreme court? One of plenary jurisdiction?

      < "The Doctrine of Terra Nullius became a morphed and more extreme version of the Doctrine of Discovery and was not overruled until the 1992 case of Mabo v State of Queensland.

      However, the legacy of Terra Nullius remains with the Crown retaining the underlying sovereignty of all land in Australia.

      The Papal Bulls that sanctioned the invasion and exploitation of Indigenous peoples lands all around the world are still valid.

      The US decision of Johnson v McIntosh has not been overruled. Johnson v McIntosh continues to be relied on around the world including in Australian post Mabo decisions." >

      Is there still any doubt as to who the "crown" is?

      "The Doctrine of Discovery" -


    Ross Bradley.

    Never a dull moment.


    Sep 08 9:45 PM | Link | 2 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.